Appeal 3306253

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.

No. [site address] is located in a residential area which includes two storey semi-detached houses and also rows of semi-detached pairs of bungalows. The appeal building is part of a row of five pairs of semi-detached bungalows at [address] and there are two semi-detached pairs of bungalows at Cherry Tree Avenue.

The Council considers that the proposed side and rear extensions would not impact in a negative way or detract from the character and appearance of the area. I see no reason to disagree, having regard to the scale, design and proposed materials for that part of the proposed development. The Council also considers that the proposed rear dormer could be acceptable depending upon its design and use of materials. The Council’s reason for refusal concerns the effect of the proposed front dormer window on the character and appearance of the original building, surrounding properties and its settings.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] and [name] indicates that front dormers may be supported in specific circumstances, such as if they are characteristic of other dwellings in the immediate area. They must also be carefully designed to take account of the local vernacular and characteristics of the existing building.

The appellants have referred to appeal decision APP/A0665/D/22/3296142 in which an Inspector allowed a proposed front dormer at No.[address]. The Inspector noted that the appeal site contained a semi-detached bungalow and immediately adjacent to this pair were a further pair resulting in a group of four bungalows that were read together. He advised that the group was visually discrete from the rest of the development along Cherry Tree Avenue, and as such were primarily read on their own, and in connection with [address]. The Inspector considered that the proposed dormer would “bookend” the pair of bungalows when taken with the existing front dormer at the bungalow at the other end. As the four bungalows were read as a group, the dormer would balance the group rather than unbalance the semi-detached pair of which the host dwelling formed part. I accept that the standard and form of design for the proposed front dormer permitted at No.[address] is similar to that in the appeal before me, and that the proposed front dormer has been designed to be in-keeping with the existing rear dormer at No.5. However, although Cherry Tree Avenue is close to the appeal site, the circumstances and development context are different.

The semi-detached pair of bungalows including No.43 are situated where Cherry Tree Avenue forms a cul-de-sac and other adjacent dwellings in the row are two-storey in height. No. [site address] is part of a row of five similar semi-detached pairs of bungalows extending from the Cherry Tree Avenue cul-de-sac. No.[address] has a pair of pitched roof dormers on its front roof slope, which are relatively small and subordinate in appearance to the dwelling. Otherwise, the front roofs of the bungalows in the row are visually prominent and uncluttered, providing harmony in their character and appearance. The proposed front dormer at No.5 would not “bookend” the row of bungalows or create any symmetry in appearance of the five bungalows concerned, unlike the proposal at No.[address].

I find that the proposed front dormer would unbalance the pair of bungalows of Nos. 5 and [address]. It would be an unduly prominent addition in the street scene and would harm the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached bungalows and the row of semi-detached pairs of bungalows at [address] which form part of the surrounding area. The proposed front dormer would therefore conflict with policy ENV6 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that local character is respected through appropriate design. It would fail to conform to policies DM3 and DM21 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) which require development to be in keeping with the scale, character and appearance of the original dwelling, and surrounding area. It would also conflict with the Council’s supplementary planning document: [name] and [name] and the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework of achieving well designed places.

I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.